50½ x 40½. Circle of van Diest. Circle: he died in 1704. Picture is post-1707.
Post 1707 Ensign. Christie's, 23 April 2008
MONAMY: VAN DIEST
? SCOTT ?
à bout de souffle - How far may a circle extend, in space and time?
"Der Horizont mancher Menschen ist ein Kreis mit Radius Null: das nennen sie dann Standpunkt." Albert Einstein.
In what year, roughly, might the above picture have been painted ?
What is the purpose of putting up a page on van Diest at this point ?
"Adriaen van Diest was born at the Hague in 1655. He was the son of Jeronymus van Diest, a painter of sea-pieces, by whom he was instructed in the art. When he was seventeen years of age he came to London, and was employed by Granville, Earl of Bath, for whom he painted several views and ruins in the west of England. He also painted portraits, but did not meet with much encouragement, although his pictures, particularly his landscapes, possess considerable merit; as a proof of which Horace Walpole states that there were seven pictures by Van Diest in Sir Peter Lely's collection. He etched several landscapes from his own designs, in a slight, masterly style. Van Diest died in London in 1704. Unfortunately for his reputation, he is generally known by his worst pictures, which are frequently found in old houses, on wainscots, or over doors, and are executed in a hasty manner, with much mountainous background. His better pictures have changed their name."
From Wikipedia, which currently [Feb 2012] adds: "This article incorporates text from the article "DIEST, Adriaen van" in the Dictionary of Painters and Engravers by Michael Bryan, edited by Robert Edmund Graves and Sir Walter Armstrong, an 1886–1889 publication now in the public domain."
To the right an assortment of entries from a variety of dictionaries: much of a muchness. Below, a mezzotint by Kirkall, scraped perhaps 30 years after van Diest's death.
A. Vandiest Pinx / E. Kirkall Fecit. BM AN530494001
According to Arianne Burnette, writing in the ODNB, 2004, "E. H. H. Archibald suggests that [Adriaen] van Diest might have become part of the van de Velde studio, working under the younger Willem." He might, but if so, imho, only for a fortnight or less, perhaps/maybe.
14½ x 20. Im Kinsky, Vienna. 26 Feb; either 2007 or 2008
Rechts unten undeutlich legiertes Monogramm: AvD (?)
PAF 5770. Attributed to Scott. NMM
24 x 39½. Scott. Marine M. Kingzett checklist.
38 x 39. "Indistinctly signed [Monamy]". See Cockett, p 61. Agnew's
Although there is a very exact duplicate, monogrammed AvD, of the 1669 Mary Rose encounter with Algerine pirates, ascribed to van de Velde, and derived from Hollar's eye-witness drawing, the likelihood of Adrian van Diest working for van de Velde seems to me virtually nil. Make that entirely nil. This idea is merely a function of the NMM's obsession with the imaginary ubiquitous influence of the van de Veldes. Adrian van Diest had been instructed, no doubt from the age of about ten, or earlier, by his father, Jeronymus van Diest, who "excelled in sea-pieces". Adrian's sea-pieces show no special influence of the van de Veldes; and he would have been at least 17 years old before he would have set eyes on them in England, if he ever did. Had he worked for them, he would not have signed his single known copy of a van de Velde, which could have been separately commissioned by anyone, at any later date. Moreover, any employment by the van de Veldes would have been mentioned by those who wrote about him. Perhaps the painting assigned to van de Velde is a copy of an original by van Diest? Perhaps van Diest died in 1714, not 1704?
This preamble arises from the disconcerting sight of the picture above right, attributed to Monamy, which seems utterly unlike anything else known to be by him, but which does appear to me to have traits in common with the painting at the top of this page. There are other interesting parallels.
Above, top right: storm and shipwreck by van Diest. Approximately 14 x 18; The Holburne Museum of Art, Bath. Above, lower right, storm and shipwreck by Peter Monamy. 24½ x 29½., Cheltenham Art Gallery & Museum.
The battle's date is 1692; 1692 is not the date of the paintings.
To the left is a drawing, BM AN00211138001, and an oil painting, NMM BHC0336, clearly related to it. The oil is not signed, but it looks as though the drawing is. Both are attributed to the Younger van de Velde, and dated [?] to circa 1700, which seems an oddly long time after the event. No reason is given for the choice of this date: it seems quite arbitrary.
Below is a near copy of this composition, auctioned by Christie's, 29 Oct, 2008. Provenance was given as: The Marquess of Sligo; Christie's, London, 20 May 1955, [part] lot 29, as P. Monamy (sold 60 gns.); Anonymous sale; Christie's, London, 27 October 1961, [part] lot 103, as P. Monamy (sold 380 gns.). See also here, for Algerine link.
Above: Thomas Baston print.
Right: Circle of Adrian van Diest. Christie's 1996.
From auction catalogue: Christie's 18 April 1996
Right: Circle of Adrian van Diest. Christie's 1996.
Below: Simon de Vlieger, 1600-1653. BHC0779. NMM.
22 x 42. Signed.
Van Diest: "His better pictures have changed their name."
may be continued; but will never be concluded
"The styles of Scott and Peter Monamy, and ultimately of all the English marine artists of the eighteenth century,
were formed entirely on that of the Van de Veldes."
Galloping insanity extracted from The Oxford History of English Art: 1625-1714, by Whinney and Millar
"They make one gasp and stretch one's eyes".
monamy website index
chronology & authenticity
a century of moonlight
try foliage here
monamy explained popery and painting
© Charles Harrison-Wallace 2012, 2016
all rights reserved